THE NATIONAL NURSERYMAN. 
155 
NEW YORK INTERESTS . 
Surservmen Decidedly Opposed to Legislation Proposed by Cer¬ 
tain Fruit Growers of the Empire State, Who Would Have 
All Nursery Stock Fumigated, Greenhouse Stock 
Excepted — Eastern Association of Nursery¬ 
men Acts Promptly—A Vigorous Protest. 
Again the nurserymen of the Empire State are confronted 
with proposed legislation which would seriously handicap an 
important industry. Assemblyman Phipps, of Orleans county, 
has introduced in the New York legislature the bill cham¬ 
pioned by Assemblyman Litchard last year, amended so as to 
make it still more objectionable to the nurserymen of the 
state, and of those in other states who deal with them. 
The bill provides for certificates of inspection of nursery 
stock and for destruction, without compensation, of trees 
condemned by the commissioner of agriculture, and in con¬ 
clusion reads as follows: 
All trees, shrubs, plants, buds or cuttings, commonly called nursery 
stock, disseminated or planted in this state or forwarded in or out of it 
after the first day of July, ninete'en hundred and one, must be 
fumigated with hydrocyanic acid gas in such manner as may be 
prescribed by said commissioner, such fumigation shall be done 
by the grower, consignee or consignor of such stock before dis¬ 
semination or re shipment, except such trees, shrubs, plants, buds or 
cuttings as are planted by the grower or propagator for himself, or 
such as from its nature and state of growth would be exempt, in such 
cases the said commissioner shall declare said trees, shrubs, plants, 
buds or cuttings free from such treatment. All such nursery stock 
forwarded by any transportation company must be accompanied with 
a certificate from the consignor that it has been fumigated as aforesaid. 
Should any such stock from out of the state be received in this state 
not accompanied with a certificate that it has been fumigated with 
hydrocyanic gas, it must be so treated by the consignee or consignor 
before planting, dissemination or re-shipment. 
§ 2. The provisions of this act shall not apply to florist’s greenhouse 
plants, flowers and cuttings commonly known as greenhouse stock. 
§ 3. This act, except so far as it relates to fumigation, shall take 
effect immediately. 
A meeting of the Eastern Nurserymen’s Association was 
held in Rochester on January 16th, and the matter was dis¬ 
cussed. The secretary, William Pitkin, sent the following com¬ 
munication to Assemblyman Isaac W. Salyerds, of the com¬ 
mittee on agriculture, to which the bill was referred: 
Dear Sir—I am informed that on Wednesday last a bill was intro¬ 
duced into the Assembly and referred to the committee an agriculture, 
providing for the fumigation of nursery stock, and on the lines of a 
similar bill introduced a year ago. I have not yet had an opportunity 
of seeing a copy of the bill, but hope to do so within a day 01 two. 
This association wishes to go on record early as decidedly opposed to 
any legislation of this character for the reason that, according to state¬ 
ments of the department of agriculture following the work done by its 
inspectors, the nurseries of the state to-day are practically free from San 
Jose scale and have received from the department of agriculture a clean 
bill of health. It would seem unnecessary that nursery stock which has 
been inspected and declared free should be fumigated, especially as to¬ 
day no one is able to say positively that fumigation will accomplish 
the desired result, or that fumigation will not injure the trees and 
plants subjected to it. 
Such a law would also prove injurious to the nursery interests of 
this state in competition with the nurserymen of other states, for if the 
law is enacted our competitors in other states will at once say to our 
customers, or possible customers, that New York must be full of scale, 
otherwise the nurserymen of New York would not be obliged by state 
law to fumigate, and we are convinced that this would be a serious 
handicap to our business, for certainly it has proven to be such in 
Maryland, the only state, so far as I know to-day, that has a state law on 
these lines. 
! ; I assume that a hearing will be granted to parties interested, and 
therefore will not take up your time to-day with a long argument, but 
simply wish to record the opposition of this association to any legisla¬ 
tion of this character and ask for an opportunity to be heard before any 
decision is reached by members of your committee. 
The nursery interests in this state are very large and important and I 
am sure that your committee will hot favor any legislation that will 
seriously injure such an important line of business. 
Yours truly, Wm. Pitkin, Secretary. 
CLASSIFICATION OF APPLES. 
In a recent bulletin, Prof. F. A. Waugh, horticulturist of 
the Vermont Experiment Station, discussing apples of the 
Fameuse type, says, regarding the classification of apples: 
The second revision of Downing’s “Fruits and Fruit Trees of 
America,” which is the standard work on descriptive pomology for 
America, names 1,856 varieties of apples. This list was published in 
1872, since which time there have undoubtedly been some hundreds of 
varieties introduced. In 1892 Bailey made a list of the apples offered 
in nurserymen’s catalogues in the United States and Canada, and found 
that there were 878 varieties then named, propagated and held for ^ale. 
Besides the varieties Sold by the nurserymen at any given time, 
there are always many more not generally distributed but kept, 
coddled and prized in private collections, in small neighborhoods, or in 
out-of-the way places. It seems a very moderate estimate, therefore, 
to say that there are 1,000 different kinds of apples in commercial circu¬ 
lation on this continent to-day, that there are over 2,000 varieties 
described in contemporary literature, and that there have been more 
than 3,000 separate sorts named and propagated in America within the 
period covered by our brief pomological history. 
The impossibility of any man’s knowing all varieties of apples will 
be evident from the foregoing considerations. These thousands of 
varieties are separated from one another by infinitesimal shades of dif¬ 
ference. Some of them can hardly be told apart by the most expert 
pomologists and after years of acquaintance. The cultivated apples 
are remarkably homogeneous. They are (with very minor exceptions 
for certain crabs) derived from one original species. Compare this 
with the cherries,—two or three hundred varieties derived from two 
species,—or with the plums, where a thousand varieties are derived 
from ten or fifteen original species. In no class of fruits, unless it be 
possibly the strawberries, are varietal distinctions so thin and vexa¬ 
tious as in apples. 
But while the characteristics of varieties of apples, taken all together, 
are so confusing, there are a few pronounced types which the horticul¬ 
turist may fix in his mind, and round which cluster certain groups of 
varieties. The Fameuse presents such a type. There are several dif¬ 
ferent apples of the Fameuse group, all differing measurably from 
Fameuse, but all conforming closely enough to the Fameuse type so 
that their close relationship with one another and with Fameuse may 
be readily recognized by the pomologist. 
If the reader will consider the foregoing paragraph closely he will 
see what is meant by the important terms “type and group.. 
They present the essentials of pomological classification. If our multi¬ 
tudinous varieties are ever to be classified, it must be by putting them 
into groups; and these groups must cluster about the more conspicu¬ 
ous, permanent and recognizable types. 
In common language these groups are sometimes called “ families,” 
and some men speak of the “Fameuse family,” the Ben Davis 
family,” etc. The idea is the same; but the terms “type and 
“ group ” are more precise and convenient, aside from the fact that 
the word “family ” has been pre-empted in plant study with another 
technical meaning. 
a subscriber from the first. 
Stanton B. Cole, Bridgeton, N. J., June 12, 1900.-“ Replying to 
yours of the 8th, informing me that my subscription expires with this 
issue I enclose $1 for the renewal. I think we have been with you 
from the first issue, and do not think we can get along without it now.” 
